VPN protects against MitM. Are we assuming everyone was using that for some reason?
VPN protects against MitM. Are we assuming everyone was using that for some reason?
Why would a "rogue" access point that actually delivers your packets be bad?
Because unfortunately not everything is hardened against MitM attacks yet. Everything should be, but not everything is.
I think this is a question of him at heart not being opposed to this idea.
Putting words in his mouth about a Muslim registry takes attention away from legitimate criticism (practicality of a border wall, treatment of women, financial plans, etc.) and therefore works in his favor.
Preface: I voted against Trump.
In the first clip I'm noticing that Trump refers to borders and walls suggesting his mind is in the context of immigration from the south. That would mean his comments about databases refer to immigration in general. Islam isn't referenced until late in the clip, and then by the interviewer rather than Trump. My conclusion: Trump and the interviewer are talking about two different things. It's unclear if the interviewer intended for that to happen. It's also unclear whether some of the interview from before the clip we see would've established a Muslim context to what we see.
In the second clip Trump seems to try to avoid the question. I can interpret that as him being evasive or as him being annoyed at the question. Being annoyed would be understandable if Trump has not proposed a Muslim database. I haven't seen evidence he has. A smarter politician would've taken the opportunity to say "Muslim database? That's horrible idea and I'm against it! Now an immigration database would be handy to have in the unlikely event Canada invades..." if he has not proposed a Muslim database, but I don't think Trump is very smart (see my preface).
I don't think you've considered all the weaknesses of the system you're suggesting...
Hillary Clinton won 300 counties while Trump won 5000.
Suppose right before the election Dr. Evil gerrymandered the whole country so there are only 3 counties - two in his house, and one for everyone else. Based on your reckoning he is the rightful president because he won the two counties in his house.
If you think that the election of a nation should be swayed by a handful of cities
I would argue the election would be swayed by vast numbers of individual voters whose votes are weighted equally regardless of race, religion, gender, (etc...), and where they live.
The weighting based on where you live can easily be leveraged into weighting based on income level, race, or religion. For example suppose we don't like the Mormons - well if you're from Utah your vote now counts 1/10 as much as everyone else's. This negatively influences of perceived fairness of the government which is directly related to its perceived legitimacy. A government perceived as illegitimate will be eventually be forced to govern by violence, which is in no one's best interest.
You seem to be OK with weighting different peoples votes differently. I'd be interested to hear at what point you consider the weights to be too extreme? My understanding is the current system results in maximum of about a 1:4 disparity between Californians versus Wyomingites (Wyomines?) (https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=1m43s). 1/10? 1/100?
How do you justify the particular weighting you've selected as optimal as oppose to any other?
Where's that speech Hillary gave to Goldman Sachs? Maybe she's contradicted herself for the millionth time yet again?
Look through all the posts in this discussion and I think you will find that no one is arguing that Hillary would make a good president. What I think you will find is lot of people arguing that Trump would make a dangerous one.
No, it assumes that the growth related to not paying the dividend is, on average, equal to the dividend, which it is.
there are a lot of irrational investors, and you are evidently one of them.
See also: ad hominem.
This is the book I base my strategy on. Its author is Benjamin Graham, the mentor of the better known Warren Buffett. If you think my implementation is wrong I'm interested in what you have to say (with references to the points made this or some other authoritative source, of course). At the moment from you have offered nothing to back up your claims and have no more credibility than any other random person on the internet. Claiming the strategy is irrational is simply silly given that I can look up the results of Graham's various direct proteges.
you can simply take the money out of that stock and diversify by selling shares
This strategy relies on the stock price constantly growing and assumes that the growth is dependent on the profits being kept, and that the growth can be maintained, and that the growth is by a greater dollar amount than the dividend otherwise would be. These are assumptions I am not willing to make and if any of them is false I'm better off receiving the dividend.
I have said it before and I'll say it again - In the US you don't have the luxury of voting for the person you want to be president, you have to vote against the person you don't want to be president. That leaves no room for third parties.
The fact that two outsiders made such big inroads on both sides of the aisle gives me hope that after Clinton wins this election that there will be enough popular support for replacing the voting system with something like run-off voting. Especially if Trump and Sanders would use their substantial platforms to start the conversation.
the capital gains from reinvestment only are taxed when the shares are sold.
Not paying dividends does not guarantee rational reinvestment much less subsequent growth:
"... by late 2001, Oracle Corp. had piled up $5 billion in cash. Cisco Systems had hoarded at least $7.5 billion. Microsoft had amassed a mountain of cash $38.2 billion high - and rising by an average of $2 million per hour. Just how rainy a day was Bill Gates expecting, anyway?
- Jason Zweig "The Intelligent Investor, Revised Edition"
I only invest in shares that pay dividends. My strategy is to use my dividends to buy new shares in other companies. This increases my diversification, and since those companies pay dividends too, results in exponential, albeit slow, growth. I view tax as the price of this defensive posture, just like I view more transaction fees as the price of diversification.
It's even deeper than that.
The excuse for given for this is to guard against identity theft. Crooks stealing identities will max out their stolen credit cards by buying gift cards and then spending those as cash. The individual who owns the card calls the company, tells them of the fraud, and they remove it from the card, send out a new one, etc. But since the switch to the chip based cards, it is my understanding that the business selling the card is liable in the event of fraud.
So the people getting screwed are individuals carrying prepaid cards. The benefactors are businesses. Funny how often it's been working out that way recently, eh?
I'm with you on dividends and low P/E (though I prefer under 12). It is worth noting however that if you are given the share for free, then P = 0, therefore P/E = 0. And not one of those pseudo-0's that some charts show when E < 0.
Combine that with traffic that isn't going to worry about you and it can be quite scary riding a bicycle.
Actual conversation between my wife and I one night:
Her: "Geeze! Did you pass that bicycle close enough?"
Me: "What bicycle???"
At least there's no excuse for these electric varieties to not have lights.
Making it electrical won't change things on a practical level in the least. Americans love their gas guzzlers
Americans don't give a crap about gas but we loathe wasting time and money. Make a cheap electric vehicle that can reach the speed limit in short order and Americans will jump on board. Tesla has roughly right idea, if they could just get the price of the vehicle lower than the price of a cheap ICE ($17,000) + its entire lifetime of gasoline cost ($3 gal * 125,000 miles / 25 mpg = $15,000). They're on the right track with the Model X. Given the pollution aspect government subsidies could be extremely helpful here, but politically that'll only happen when
1. Detroit starts pushing for it and
2. conservative politicians stop "being skeptical" that pollution is even a thing and that the free market is sacred, never to be touched by unclean government hands.
[Netflix can't replace] the experience of the movie theater.
Oh yes, so many things I will miss about movie theaters...
- Outrageous prices of concessions and tickets.
- Going to the movie rather than it coming to me.
- Inability to pause.
- Scheduling parts of my day around when the movie I want to see is on.
- Other people that never improve, and often detract from, the movie experience.
Mark my words: Movie theaters are the next lunch Netflix will eat after cable TV stations and providers.
Nothing is preventing you from using any browser and search engine you want. Typing something into Cortana doesn't get you anything you can't get by typing the same thing into any search engine.
Bundling Internet Explorer with Windows is what got them into trouble in 2001. Nothing stopped users from downloading some other browser but that argument didn't prevent Microsoft being found in violation of antitrust law.
I'm amazed at how blatantly they're ignoring history.
Save the whales. Collect the whole set.